To save stock markets and bankrupt companies Obama donated $9 Trillion to $50 Trillion because of which now USA defense companies are in serious trouble. ------------------ 15 Companies That Will Get Crushed When The Government Stops Spending #1 Lockheed Martin (Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II multi-role fighter) #2 Boeing #3 Northrop Grumman (Northrop Grumman's B2-Spirit stealth bomber) #4 General Dynamics (General Dynamics Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tank) #5 Raytheon (Raytheon's Phalanx CIWS anti-ship missile system) #6 United Technologies (Sikorsky's UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter) #7 L-3 Communications (L-3's F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainer) #8 Oshkosh Corp. #10 BAE (BAE's Astute-class nuclear submarine) Read more........ http://www.businessinsider.com/top-federal-government-contractors-2011-5
I should have been more clear. My apologies. Let me quote Reagan on this one: Any company that can't survive without help from the government, shouldn't surivive. I believe the applies to the handouts we've been giving to Big Oil too, btw. With all their whining about the deficit, the GOP sure showed themselves to be hypocrites in that regard - and in the Ryan budget.
Every single one of those companies earns a substantial amount of money exporting weapons to foreign countries.
Nope, they will all stay in business. Because while all have extensive government contracts, that is not their sole source of income. Boeing is still the worlds largest supplier of commercial aircraft. And it will continue to make parts and services available for those aircraft, reguardless of what the Government does in the future. And going down the list, I see other foolish claims. L-3 builds flight trainers. Big whoop-de-doo. They are also one of the worlds leading producers of commercial telecommunications and wireless equipment (as in the big things that go on the poles to give you cell reception). They also build long-distance communication equipment for everything from airlines and ships to satellites and computer networks. United Technologies, another good pick there. Yes, they produce equipment for Blackhawks (not the helicopters themselves, just some equipment in them. They also make commercial and industrial fire and burglar alarms, escelators, elevators, aircraft engines, wind turbines, and a great many other things. This is a conglomerate that owns such companies as Carrier, Clipper, Otis, Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne, and UTC. And another good one, Oshkosh. They make the vehicle I use on a regular basis, the M-998 HEMTT. They are also a leading manufacturer of civilian fire equipment, heavy construction equipment, cranes, boom lifts, and large commercial tow and wrecker trucks (not the kind that picks up your wrecked car, the kind that picks up the wrecked 18 wheeler). And most of your information otherwise seems to be old and obsolete. The last B-2 (Northrop Grumman) was built in 1997, that is 14 years ago. General Dynamics has not built any new M1A1 tanks for the US in over 10 years. However, they do build them for foreign governments, since they are a hot tank for foreign buyers. Currently they are sold to Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. And I could go on, but I think I made my point. None of those companies is so dependent on the US Government that they will die if the contracts ended. And even though many are not building new equipment, they are still supplying upgrades and replacement parts for the equipment they have already built.
Simple solution. Start another war. Award trillions in contracts with the proviso that all the unemployed are re-employed. Produce armaments at a gigantic rate and bomb Easter Island off the map. Problem solved!
Those companies do a lot of great things for our troops, our local economies, etc... If the Government did it all, you'd probably complain about that.
Always interesting to observe instant-judgments. What makes you think I would do so? Any evidence at all? Or is it simply because I don't think the government should be supporting these companies, that leads you to this "brilliant" conclusion?
Let me start with something I always say. Research, research, research. First of all, the S&L Crisis came about when they were deregulated in 1980. Under President Carter. They were bailed out by the FSLIC, a program like the FDIC that was founded in 1934. They (like the FDIC) bailed out S&Ls for decades, no matter who was President. That is what they were designed to do. But under President Reagan, no efforts were taken by the Government to attempt to do the kind of large-scale "bail out" like we saw in later decades. The actual "bailout" was part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. Which was when George Bush Sr. was President. How about trying to actually find something that has been verified, instead of just throwing out things like this without any facts?
you're thinking of the S&L crisis, but that didn't peek until Poppy Bush was President. that was handled much better. the system was allowed to work, and the government bulldoozed empty homes it found itself owning.
I believe he's referring to the THRIFT & loan crisis, which indeed came about as a result of Reagan's deregulation of that industry and concurrently the bond industry.
Once aga, here is the specific law you are talking about. It is known as the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Notice the year, 1980. Reagan was not President yet, it was still President Carter. You did also have the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, but that was a bill primarily written and sponsored by Congressman Fernand St. Germain (D) of Rhode Island. And passed overwhelmingly by the Democrat controlled Congress. But these bills also allowed a great number of things that we take for granted today. Like having a checking account at an S&L, and the creation of the adjustable rate mortgage.
So you support corporate welfare? Boeing is not going to fall because of losing military contracts. Your comment shows that you want the govt. to support industry. Of course you probably stomped your feet regarding GM. By the when GW bailed out the airlines did you complain about that? Your reasoning for military spending is the same given by the former soviet union military establishment. More jobs would be created by spending on infrastructure than unneeded weapons.
